from the timed-to-the-movie dept

The ACLU has been hinting at this for the past few months, but with the end of President Obama's term in office coming up and coinciding with the launch of Oliver Stone's feature film about Ed Snowden, the ACLU, along with Amnesty International, are launching an official campaign to ask the President to issue a pardon for Ed Snowden. They'll be hosting a press conference Wednesday morning, where Snowden will show up via video (perhaps using Robot Snowden?) to discuss. Not surprisingly, the ACLU says they've lined up a bunch of "legal scholars, policy experts, human rights leaders, technologists and former government officials," who will all be supporting a pardon for Snowden.

There will also apparently be a sign-on form on the site PardonSnowden.org, which is currently locked up behind a password (get busy cracking that, NSA).

Not surprisingly, I think the president absolutely should pardon Snowden. I also think there's very, very, very little chance that he actually will. I wouldn't put the chance at 0% -- because it's possible. But I'd still put the likelihood in the single digits. I hope I'm wrong -- and I hope that the President recognizes why pardoning Snowden would be such a good thing, and an important part of his legacy. And I hope that the movie (which I have not seen) properly puts Snowden's actions in context (though I'm not entirely convinced Oliver Stone will do so). So, perhaps I'm wrong. But I just find it super unlikely that President Obama would stick his neck out and take a stand like that.

from the good-day,-sad-day dept

Alan Turing is a name you're required to know if you have any interest in computers, cryptology or artificial intelligence. The famed "Turing Test" is still used as one way to test functionality of artificial intelligence, he's considered the father of modern day computing, and his work in decrypting the Nazi's Enigma code quite possibly shortened the war by a factor of years, saving who knows how many lives from an even further prolonged conflict. The word hero gets tossed around a lot these days, too often utilized to describe athletes and entertainers when it should probably be reserved for people like Turing. He was an amazing person, smart as hell, and dedicated to a craft that unarguably moved humanity forward and simultaneously saved lives.

And, in 1952, he was convicted of being a homosexual and sentenced to chemical castration by hormone injection, leading to his suicide a few years later. That was 1954. And, though it sadly took sixty years, the Queen has officially pardoned Turing for his non-crime.

Announcing the pardon, Grayling said: "Dr. Alan Turing was an exceptional man with a brilliant mind. His brilliance was put into practice at Bletchley Park during the second world war, where he was pivotal to breaking the Enigma code, helping to end the war and save thousands of lives.

"His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed. Dr. Turing deserves to be remembered and recognised for his fantastic contribution to the war effort and his legacy to science. A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man."

It is undoubtedly a good thing that Turing has been pardoned, though the need for such a pardon should never have arisen. For a government to have chemically castrated one of their very best was a crime for which I issue no pardon of my own. And that's important, because the very same queen that was queening over the UK when Turing was convicted, sentenced, and killed himself was the same queen that queeningly issued this pardon. And, amazingly, it took Elizabeth the Second four years to do so after the UK government's Gordon Brown issued an "unequivocal apology" to Turing and his family. There is a very firm lesson here for all of us in how we treat one another, even those who are different from us.

Writer David Leavitt, professor of English at Florida University and author of The Man Who Knew Too Much: Alan Turing and the Invention of the Computer (2006), said it was "great news". The conviction had had "a profound and devastating" effect on Turing, Leavitt said, as the mathematician felt he was being "followed and hounded" by the police "because he was considered a security risk".

"There was this paranoid idea in 1950s England of the homosexual traitor, that he would be seduced by a Russian agent and go over to the other side," Leavitt said. "It was such a misjudgment of Alan Turing because he was so honest, and was so patriotic."

More importantly, it was a misjudgment of Alan Turing as a human being. To use our fear and dislike of those that are different from us to completely negate the possible benefits our fellow human Alan Turing could have brought us had he not been so abused shows the very worst in all of us. So, while it may feel warm and fuzzy that Turing has been officially pardoned, I'd suggest we all keep our eye on the ball this holiday season and make an effort to judge each other not on old and antiquated biases, but on our character and actions. Had humanity done so, who knows where Alan Turing could have brought us? And I would hope that any fear some of us might have of those that are different from us would be outweighed by the fear of losing the contributions of those very same people.

from the justiceville? dept

There was an earlier report in the Washington Post that one of the tech execs who met with President Obama on Tuesday had directly said that the President should issue a pardon for Ed Snowden -- something the President immediately said he could not do. There had been some speculation on which exec said that, but according to CNN, it was Mark Pincus, the founder of social gaming company Zynga:

A source familiar with the meeting told CNN Chief Washington Correspondent Jake Tapper that one of the executives, Mark Pincus, founder of Zynga, which makes on-line social games, suggested to the President that he pardon NSA leaker Edward Snowden, but Obama said he could not do that. The suggestion of the pardon was first reported by the Washington Post.

Hopefully other execs will follow on that lead and start speaking out. Given everything that's happened in the past six months, the idea that the US is still trying to arrest Snowden and charge him under the Espionage Act is a growing travesty that makes the administration look ridiculously petty. A true leader knows when to admit to making mistakes. The President has an opportunity that he's squandering.

from the now-is-the-time dept

It's been an interesting week. With both a federal judge and the White House's own task force both basically saying that the current NSA surveillance efforts go way too far, it seems time to admit that what Ed Snowden did was an incredible service to the American public (not to mention the rest of the world). The fact that the US is still trying to charge him under the Espionage Act is a travesty. You would think that revealing a secret government program that a federal judge found violates the Constitution would make one a hero and a whistleblower, rather than an outlaw.

And while some in the NSA have even floated the idea of granting Snowden amnesty, that seems like a non-starter in the White House. A report from the meeting President Obama held with tech company execs this week notes that at least one executive told the President that he should pardon Snowden -- something the President refused to do:

One participant suggested the president pardon Snowden. Obama said he could not do so, said one industry official. White House officials have said that Snowden is accused of leaking classified information and faces felony charges in the United States, and that he should be returned as soon as possible to the United States, “where he will be accorded full due process and protections.”

Whatever happens as a result of Judge Leon's decision this week and whatever comes of today's recommendations from the intelligence review panel, we cannot forget who it was who helped our country get to the stage of having this debate, not to speak of the personal price he has had to pay as a whistleblower -- turning to foreign dictatorships for refuge. We should be treating him as a hero for what he did, and Congress can do something about it.

The constitution bars a bill of attainder -- a law declaring that a particular individual is guilty of a crime. But there is no reason why Congress cannot enact a bill of non-attainder: a statute declaring retroactively that Edward Snowden is not guilty of any crime for what he has done to date, and forbidding the government from prosecuting him fo rpast conduct. Surely we own him that much for what he has done for us.

It's an interesting idea, and one that seems highly unlikely to happen -- especially as many in Congress stupidly are still referring to Snowden as a "traitor." But, there does seem to be growing support in Congress for real reforms over the surveillance efforts, and one would hope that those who are in support of such changes could also see why they ought to make a strong effort to protect the person who made those changes possible.

from the really-now? dept

The Associated Press, which does not have the greatest history when it comes to respecting fair use, has posted a copy of the letter that Chelsea Manning sent to President Obama, requesting a pardon. If you haven't read the letter, it's worth reading. Here's a snippet:

In our zeal to kill the enemy, we internally debated the definition of torture. We held individuals at Guantanamo for years without due process. We inexplicably turned a blind eye to torture and executions by the Iraqi government. And we stomached countless other acts in the name of our war on terror.

Patriotism is often the cry extolled when morally questionable acts are advocated by those in power. When these cries of patriotism drown out any logically based dissension, it is usually the American soldier that is given the order to carry out some ill-conceived mission.

Our nation has had similar dark moments for the virtues of democracy - the Trail of Tears, the Dred Scott decision, McCarthyism, and the Japanese-American internment camps - to mention a few. I am confident that many of the actions since 9/11 will one day be viewed in a similar light.

But what struck me is that the AP page, which is nothing more than a reprint of Manning's letter with a single sentence explaining what it is at the top, contains a massively overbearing copyright notice right beneath the letter, which is an extreme form of copyfraud:

Nearly all of that is bullshit. The copyright on the letter does not belong to the AP. And, yes, the work can be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed within the confines of fair use. It's a shame that the AP is so aggressive on copyrights that it's even claiming someone else's work as its own -- in a case where the AP itself is certainly relying on fair use for the right to publish the letter in the first place.

from the that-didn't-take-long-at-all dept

A petition set up on the White House's "We the People" petition site asking the Obama administration to pardon Edward Snowden has already passed 100,000 signatures, and shows no signs of slowing down, with a few weeks still left to go. That means that, in theory, the White House is supposed to issue a response to the petition. Of course, that response could be "hell, no" but it seems more likely that it will be something about letting the DOJ investigation, indictment and charges go through their due course. Still, it is worth noting -- especially in comparison to other petitions -- just how quickly this one got to 100,000 signatures. There are an awful lot of Americans who think that Snowden did something brave and important in revealing how the NSA was spying on us all. Having politicians continue to refer to him as a "traitor" seems like a really short sighted position. A fairly large number of people clearly feel quite the opposite is true.

As TorrentFreak notes, this is odd for a variety of reasons. Beyond it being strange that anyone would think that a plea for a pardon is "offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable," the petition site on Avaaz appears to have plenty of things that would be much more likely to cause offense to some people. TorrentFreak reasonably wonders why, of all the petitions on Avaaz, did it happen to pick out the Sunde one?

But I'd argue it goes even further than that. Why should Avaaz even be asking if petitions are "offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable"? If someone posts such a petition, wouldn't it take care of itself by the fact that people won't sign it? Trying to pre-determine if a petition is acceptable seems to go against the very setup of an open petition site like Avaaz's.